You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Your man Boycott says you have to find the rough diamonds and polish them, speaking of players such as Ben Stokes. Flintoff was a great example of that in a different time past.

Looking at the challenge of 2019, for the World Cup in England, we have got to start from the correct premise re the composition of the team. That means Root, Buttler and Stokes (for he has now arrived, no mistake) at the core as players who have demonstrated they have the aptitude and toughness to take their performance to the next level.

Build around them and we have a chance of doing far better than the embarrassment Down Under.

What if Stokes has another succession of poor performances?

The building around thing is spoken of much in the media but is a myth, really.

OK, but can you be a bit more explicit about what you mean by the bits in bold?

Do these phrases mean that when you convene your selection panel you're going to start with these three in the team no matter what, and only discuss the remaining 8 places? If so, that sounds like a recipe for trouble -- because what if one of these three has consistently played badly for some time? Isn't that what they did with Cook after the last World Cup? It meant hanging on to him for some time after they should have dropped him. Wouldn't it be better just to pick all 11 players during the selection meeting, all on the same basis? Obviously if a player is doing badly one has to make a decision about if and when to drop him. And that will depend on one's hunches about his prospects of returning swiftly to his best, and it will depend upon who else is on the fringes and how you feel about them. But I don't see any advantage in singling out people for preferential treatment in advance.

Or do the bits in bold mean that those players get to bat in their preferred positions? Because if that's the case, I don't think we know what those preferred positions might be. Or do they mean that you get to decide yourself where you think those players would bat best and that you're intending to be inflexible about that when discussing selection for future matches?

I'm just a bit confused by what is being suggested. The analogy seems foreign to the task.

Very well put.

It's a concept not confined only to cricket and just one of many that can find favour if it's not thought about too deeply.

The building around thing is spoken of much in the media but is a myth, really.

Performances need to be sustained.

Of course nothing is nailed-on guaranteed. Players can get injured. The thing is that you have to set a direction based on some solid foundations for the team. The best indicators are the players who have performed under pressure already and who have the qualities that are the basis for a successful team.

If you have an established team with a track record of success, such as the World Cup winning Aussies, you know your production line of new players is working and you are not trying to rebuild from scratch, even if certain players will need replacing before the next World Cup. Clarke, Watson and Johnson are examples.

OK, but can you be a bit more explicit about what you mean by the bits in bold?

Do these phrases mean that when you convene your selection panel you're going to start with these three in the team no matter what, and only discuss the remaining 8 places? If so, that sounds like a recipe for trouble -- because what if one of these three has consistently played badly for some time? Isn't that what they did with Cook after the last World Cup? It meant hanging on to him for some time after they should have dropped him. Wouldn't it be better just to pick all 11 players during the selection meeting, all on the same basis? Obviously if a player is doing badly one has to make a decision about if and when to drop him. And that will depend on one's hunches about his prospects of returning swiftly to his best, and it will depend upon who else is on the fringes and how you feel about them. But I don't see any advantage in singling out people for preferential treatment in advance.

Or do the bits in bold mean that those players get to bat in their preferred positions? Because if that's the case, I don't think we know what those preferred positions might be. Or do they mean that you get to decide yourself where you think those players would bat best and that you're intending to be inflexible about that when discussing selection for future matches?

I'm just a bit confused by what is being suggested. The analogy seems foreign to the task.

Okay, let me have a try at expanding on those aspects. I'll start off with the core.

By defining a core of the team, we mean identifying players who possess the essential qualities needed for the ODI team and squad, both in terms of proven performances and the demands of the modern game. By starting off with those players, the identity of the England ODI team will be defined and the skills and attitudes of those team members will be expected to rub off on the others drafted into the squad and the eleven.

Negative examples of this prior to the last World Cup were Cook, great test batsman that he is, as the captain in the run up. He didn't have the fundamental skills needed for ODIs to lead from the front. Bell also fits into that category, in my view. Senior member of the team, but not the quintessential ODI batsman who will set the tone and direction for the up and coming members of the squad. So then, Cook and Bell are examples of the kind of player you do not want to form the core, even though they are great servants of England cricket.

Okay, let me have a try at expanding on those aspects. I'll start off with the core.

By defining a core of the team, we mean identifying players who possess the essential qualities needed for the ODI team and squad, both in terms of proven performances and the demands of the modern game. By starting off with those players, the identity of the England ODI team will be defined and the skills and attitudes of those team members will be expected to rub off on the others drafted into the squad and the eleven.

Negative examples of this prior to the last World Cup were Cook, great test batsman that he is, as the captain in the run up. He didn't have the fundamental skills needed for ODIs to lead from the front. Bell also fits into that category, in my view. Senior member of the team, but not the quintessential ODI batsman who will set the tone and direction for the up and coming members of the squad. So then, Cook and Bell are examples of the kind of player you do not want to form the core, even though they are great servants of England cricket.

I agree with you that Cook and Bell are best left out of the ODI team, if that's what you're saying in the last paragraph. But I can't see that categorising certain players to yourself as core players could have the effect that you outline here. In practice, unless you wish for the ECB to make some announcement labelling certain players as core players in the meantime, there's going to be a selection meeting before every ODI series, and a squad will be announced, and then when the team is chosen on the day everyone is in principle as core as everyone else, and the differentiation of one player from another is as performed by the scorecard, i.e. in terms of batting and bowling order. The place for your concept of "core" to make a difference is presumably only in the selection meeting; and there I am not so sure how it would work. Some roles and some players will receive more discussion than others in such a meeting, but that will depend on a variety of factors, only one of which -- and probably a comparatively minor one -- will be some grand new vision devised in the abstract after being walloped in the last world cup. It would seem a bit superfluous for the selectors to try explicitly to agree amongst themselves about who is going to constitute the core of their team, since on the face of it they have enough work on their hands choosing a XII or a XV or whatever the squad may require. And I can't see how picking Stokes, Buttler and Root before the rest of the team, in the selection meeting behind closed doors, would make any difference to the team as a whole. We simply don't know in what order the selectors pick the team, and it doesn't matter; and I can't see that there's anywhere else for your notion of "starting off" with certain players rather than others to be embodied. The openers come out to bat first, but they're not necessarily the so-called "core" players; and the whole team at once come out to field. You're surely not proposing to instruct the squad as a whole that they have to follow the example of Buttler, Root, and Stokes -- for then what if all those three play like melons for several games on the trot? In practice, the tone is set by different people in different games, or in different phases of the same game. I think there is a place for the kind of role that you've sketched; but it's located in the form of the captain who leads by example. And we all know the perennial problems attendant on that singling out of one player: his form goes up and down, he gets blamed when the team lose, he worries too much, etc. etc. In practice, the team have to find inspiration from each other if they possibly can; but there's no reliable way of legislating in advance how that will work.

The building around thing is spoken of much in the media but is a myth, really.

Performances need to be sustained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieh

Of course nothing is nailed-on guaranteed. Players can get injured. The thing is that you have to set a direction based on some solid foundations for the team. The best indicators are the players who have performed under pressure already and who have the qualities that are the basis for a successful team.

If you have an established team with a track record of success, such as the World Cup winning Aussies, you know your production line of new players is working and you are not trying to rebuild from scratch, even if certain players will need replacing before the next World Cup. Clarke, Watson and Johnson are examples.

Surely, all players selected have "the qualities that are the basis for a successful team". It is the results that players get that provide the solid foundations. All players go through periods where they do or don't perform under pressure. It seems strange, and not a little unfair, to suggest there is a small group of players outside which we assume no other player should be given the same recognition.

Hopefully, such a dangerously elitist selection policy will never see the light of day.

Okay, let me have a try at expanding on those aspects. I'll start off with the core.

By defining a core of the team, we mean identifying players who possess the essential qualities needed for the ODI team and squad, both in terms of proven performances and the demands of the modern game. By starting off with those players, the identity of the England ODI team will be defined and the skills and attitudes of those team members will be expected to rub off on the others drafted into the squad and the eleven. ...

"the identity of the England ODI team will be defined" etc. sounds a bit like something you'd get from a management consultancy firm, superficially impressive but ultimately meaningless.

What we need is a team with no barriers to entry for promising players because we have a small, undroppable elite.

"the identity of the England ODI team will be defined" etc. sounds a bit like something you'd get from a management consultancy firm, superficially impressive but ultimately meaningless.

What we need is a team with no barriers to entry for promising players because we have a small, undroppable elite.

Okay, your view is pretty clear, but we are not talking an elite based on position, but a core based on competency and the qualities which must be further propagated throughout the squad. Barriers to entry? Absolutely. Do you have the required skills and a winning mentality that fits within the concept of the England ODI squad? Yes, then you will get your chances. No, then go away and develop those and then come back.

I agree with you that Cook and Bell are best left out of the ODI team, if that's what you're saying in the last paragraph. But I can't see that categorising certain players to yourself as core players could have the effect that you outline here. In practice, unless you wish for the ECB to make some announcement labelling certain players as core players in the meantime, there's going to be a selection meeting before every ODI series, and a squad will be announced, and then when the team is chosen on the day everyone is in principle as core as everyone else, and the differentiation of one player from another is as performed by the scorecard, i.e. in terms of batting and bowling order. The place for your concept of "core" to make a difference is presumably only in the selection meeting; and there I am not so sure how it would work. Some roles and some players will receive more discussion than others in such a meeting, but that will depend on a variety of factors, only one of which -- and probably a comparatively minor one -- will be some grand new vision devised in the abstract after being walloped in the last world cup. It would seem a bit superfluous for the selectors to try explicitly to agree amongst themselves about who is going to constitute the core of their team, since on the face of it they have enough work on their hands choosing a XII or a XV or whatever the squad may require. And I can't see how picking Stokes, Buttler and Root before the rest of the team, in the selection meeting behind closed doors, would make any difference to the team as a whole. We simply don't know in what order the selectors pick the team, and it doesn't matter; and I can't see that there's anywhere else for your notion of "starting off" with certain players rather than others to be embodied. The openers come out to bat first, but they're not necessarily the so-called "core" players; and the whole team at once come out to field. You're surely not proposing to instruct the squad as a whole that they have to follow the example of Buttler, Root, and Stokes -- for then what if all those three play like melons for several games on the trot? In practice, the tone is set by different people in different games, or in different phases of the same game. I think there is a place for the kind of role that you've sketched; but it's located in the form of the captain who leads by example. And we all know the perennial problems attendant on that singling out of one player: his form goes up and down, he gets blamed when the team lose, he worries too much, etc. etc. In practice, the team have to find inspiration from each other if they possibly can; but there's no reliable way of legislating in advance how that will work.

Most high-performance teams have star players and good solid pros who understand their role within the squad and the eleven, when selected. There is no necessity to instruct players to emulate others, since their performances, leadership and skills speak for themselves.

To a degree the designated leaders are already anointed through appointment to captain, vice-captain and wicket-keeper, who is often the leader of the fielding effort.

I am not suggesting this approach be loudly ballyhooed in the media for dissection by all and sundry.

Most high-performance teams have star players and good solid pros who understand their role within the squad and the eleven, when selected. There is no necessity to instruct players to emulate others, since their performances, leadership and skills speak for themselves.

To a degree the designated leaders are already anointed through appointment to captain, vice-captain and wicket-keeper, who is often the leader of the fielding effort.

I am not suggesting this approach be loudly ballyhooed in the media for dissection by all and sundry.

Well, Buttler's the wicket-keeper, for now at least, so that puts him in the anointment. Do you think perhaps Root and Stokes should be captain and vice-captain?

I think it's entirely possible that people could choose identical XIs but disagree about who to label as the core players! In other words, when it comes to building or rebuilding the team around people, there may be many roads to Rome.

I'm still a bit in the dark about what you are urging the selectors to do -- unless it's to pick the best team, which I think they'll be trying to do anyway.

As long as there's none of the elitism that seems to have been put forward.

You seem very sensitive about the idea of the "elite". Understandable when it is perceived players have been picked based on past glories and being a good egg from the right sort of family. However, we have to get over this. We need elite cricketers at the top of their games to regain some of the lost credibility in one day cricket.

I believe we also need to make some bold choices right now concerning the team we might envision representing England at the 2019 World Cup. It is really not that far away and we can't afford another f*** up.

That means either backing Morgan to the hilt, or, more likely, jettisoning him pronto. This should be a decision based on his perceived qualities and ability to lead from the front, and not based on perceptions of fairness and his being owed something for standing in the breach after Cook was cut loose so late.

I think the mentality and attitude that Steve wants to foster could be achieved simply by making Root captain.

There are always core players in any side, usually established pros. I guess that with the hopeful clearing out of deadwood we will have quite a young inexperienced ODI side. In the past the likes of Cook, Bell, Broad, Anderson, Bresnan and Morgan have occupied slots in the side based upon their (often undeserved) reputations while youngsters have had to fight for the other places like dogs over scraps. This led to younger players getting only a handful of games, often playing in unsuited roles, before being dropped. If we've truly turned a corner, players like Hales, Stokes and so on will need to be given an extended run to prove themselves, even if nothing in their short international careers might typically warrant such favorable treatment. If that's being a core player, then so be it.

You seem very sensitive about the idea of the "elite". Understandable when it is perceived players have been picked based on past glories and being a good egg from the right sort of family. However, we have to get over this. We need elite cricketers at the top of their games to regain some of the lost credibility in one day cricket.

I believe we also need to make some bold choices right now concerning the team we might envision representing England at the 2019 World Cup. It is really not that far away and we can't afford another f*** up.

That means either backing Morgan to the hilt, or, more likely, jettisoning him pronto. This should be a decision based on his perceived qualities and ability to lead from the front, and not based on perceptions of fairness and his being owed something for standing in the breach after Cook was cut loose so late.

Elitism seems a reasonable description of what is being suggested.

Having just had a World Cup, the next is about as far away as it could be.

Of course, the selectors will have opinions on which players may be worth persisting with and which aren't. However, I can't see any of them putting their jobs on the line by saying that some will continue to be selected no matter what, and nor should they.

Having just had a World Cup, the next is about as far away as it could be.

Of course, the selectors will have opinions on which players may be worth persisting with and which aren't. However, I can't see any of them putting their jobs on the line by saying that some will continue to be selected no matter what, and nor should they.

I have already explained what I am suggesting in some level of detail. Elite in terms of performance, preparation, skills and will to win is what England supporters should expect from their team and the ECB. Feel free to outline the alternative you would recommend.

The next World Cup is indeed as far away as it can be, both in terms of time and in terms of England's preparedness, with the team a wreckage. Three and a half years is not an abundance of time to rebuild an ODI squad and to instil the approach so evidently lacking in the antipodes. The selection policy is also in ruins, as evidenced by the last results.